Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe do some research on the word ZERO

you don;lt seem to undertstand it - at ALL

Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????

Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL
Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!

SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT

No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.

NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem

You have yet to show why they're broken.

I can read the stats - can you?

Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?

Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?

There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.

You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.

What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+

Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.

That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.

The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.

They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

I kinda agree with Slayer here, yes it's a good volume of melta shots at a fair price point, but you've got to get them there and their defensive stats aren't that amazing. Likewise in the era of having infinite height los blocking and -1 to hit terrain dotted about, there's good odds people will get the drop on these guys first.

Yea if only units could generically be guaranteed to alpha off a flanking position for only a single CP... Oh wait, now they can.

Slayer had a point, a poor one, but he couldn't resist being extreme as usual. He's part of the crowd that contributed to the idiotic redefining of the word literally through his hyperbole. So now he's moved onto other words like absolutely apparently

He has quoted himself several times in that chain, which contains the irrefutable evidence of his own failure. Yet his complete lack of humility drives him to dig deeper.

Well for one, they're immersion breaking. Soldiers simply don't behave like that. Daisy chains are a ridiculously gamey strategy.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Or you could stand in a shorter line. Why does your line have to be that long?

That's not the point. The point is that the basic unit size for most non-horde infantry units in the game is 10. GW have created a rule that actively punishes units for taking their regular sized unit (some don't get that choice, like Guardsmen) just for being within coherency (2") of one another. Adding another layer to coherency for units above 5 models adds nothing to the game except more time wasted in measuring everything.

Worse, they have also created a rule that doesn't scale, because it doesn't cause wounds, or even Mortal Wounds, it just outright kills, meaning that tougher (and more costly) units suffer disproportionately from this (it will kill a Terminator just as easily as it does a Grot).

I disagree. The rule works fine for shorter lines and kills some odd builds like the Gaunt Carpet.

Yes, it's not perfect, but it's better than leaving the mess we used to have unchecked. Something needed to be done to coherency as it was creating a lot of unfun scenarios.

I'm not sure it is better. But I do know that there was a much simpler, more effective way to address the problem: "every model must be within X" of every other model." Super easy to apply, and it actually ends conga-lines, instead of this rule, which still allows them as long as each guy has a dance partner. Obviously you keep the same 2" coherency rule within that bubble.

Make X= 14" and you have the same conga-line potential that a 5-man 32mm base unit has under the current 9th rule, with no need for complicated measuring, and you get the added bonus of horde units that actually blob up instead of being long lines, whether long lines of 1 or 2 models.

 Castozor wrote:

Except this rule also negatively impacts big melee units too? Before I could pile in/consolidate towards the next unit in a single file if I wanted too and now I can't do so anymore. Not too mention terminator units over 5 who now need to march in 2 files when before I could form one big line with 10. I know you are a GW white knight but at least consider what their changes do before you complain about us, screens were far from the only issue plaguing melee units and this change just makes it even worse. I never ever saw a gunline daisy chaining their units to be in buff auras because lo and behold, gunlines can just sit on their arse for 3 turns. Daisy chaining (in my experience at least) was mostly useful for melee units/armies and the occasional horde unit capping 2 objectives with one unit. The latter I'm fine with going away but the first not when nothing so far indicates castles are losing anything.

Yea, the "white knight" who isn't sure about Eradicators and put his pre-order on hold.

Or, maybe, so many people are pre-occupied with whining, moaning, or arm-chair rules writing while still missing the intent of the rule that we never get to discuss how we use the god damn rule in the first place.

Daisy chain is one consequence. Massive screens are a problem in a game with potential null zone deployments and also for reserves in general. You do want to be able to bring your melee reserves in close, don't you?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now having to check coherency every turn on everything bigger than 5 models to make sure they're within 2" of two other models is less "unfun".

Give me a break.

Rules that don't scale (morale casualties & coherency casualties) are inherently bad as they ignore the base rules (toughness/wounds/saves/etc.) and they could have matched it with the blast rule and made it 11+, fixing the problems with big units daisy chaining. Instead they created a rule that feths over the standard sized unit and forces everyone to waste time measuring coherency for... what? No gain at all. This is a time waster.

Right, because we don't check coherency when moving thus being able to skip that check in most circumstances?

 EnTyme wrote:
Well for one, they're immersion breaking. Soldiers simply don't behave like that. Daisy chains are a ridiculously gamey strategy.

They don't behave like that, but they do behave the same way if they've got a partner to hold hands with as they daisy-chain?

Because the 9th edition rules still allow the daisy-chain, you just gotta be holding hands with a buddy to do it. And 30 grots can still daisy-chain off an entire board edge.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Daisy chain is one consequence. Massive screens are a problem in a game with potential null zone deployments and also for reserves in general. You do want to be able to bring your melee reserves in close, don't you?

You keep posting that picture like it means something.

And even if it did this rule would'a fixed that if it had said 11+.

 Castozor wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Or you could stand in a shorter line. Why does your line have to be that long?

That's not the point. The point is that the basic unit size for most non-horde infantry units in the game is 10. GW have created a rule that actively punishes units for taking their regular sized unit (some don't get that choice, like Guardsmen) just for being within coherency (2") of one another. Adding another layer to coherency for units above 5 models adds nothing to the game except more time wasted in measuring everything.

Worse, they have also created a rule that doesn't scale, because it doesn't cause wounds, or even Mortal Wounds, it just outright kills, meaning that tougher (and more costly) units suffer disproportionately from this (it will kill a Terminator just as easily as it does a Grot).

I disagree. The rule works fine for shorter lines and kills some odd builds like the Gaunt Carpet.

Yes, it's not perfect, but it's better than leaving the mess we used to have unchecked. Something needed to be done to coherency as it was creating a lot of unfun scenarios.

What mess exactly? So far it seems GW is more intent on killing hordes than actual unfun issues like OP Auras, near infinite rerolls, marines being OP and alpha strikes. Compared to these how exactly did daisy chains feel more unfun/OP?

There were certain horde builds that could screen out the entire board by spreading out. Flyers would fall out of the sky because of it, deep strikers would have no where to go, ect.

Forcing people to leave more space on the table is not a bad thing despite people saying otherwise.

We already move in coherency and unless you pull a casualty from the middle of a line and break coherency I don't see this causing as many issues as claimed.

yukishiro1 wrote:
And 30 grots can still daisy-chain off an entire board edge.

Sure, if they want to risk losing a ton of models.

And if they do, one single attack can reduce that unit to 5 grots because lining up for recess while you're in the middle of a gunfight is now as bad an idea on the gameboard as it is in real life.

*edit* Just a reminder that we haven't seen how casualties work in this edition yet. If they go back to "closest model" like we had in 7th, daisy chains become suicide.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

The rule may be simple, but the rule is also terrible.

Step 1 : Dakka complains about melee not being good and screens getting in the way.

Step 2 : Screens have a harder time screening

Step 3 : This rule is stupid.

most major melee units in the game are hardcore nerfed by this in combination of engagement ranges. Good luck piling in orks. Oh you play custodes? Better not have more than 5 models or three will literally NEVER FIGHT. Same with centurions and agressors, and every bike unit in the game. Berzerkers? not longer able to maximize numbers. Et cetera, et cetera. Melee units not nerfed? Single model monsters. Further pushing the developing big model meta.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
And 30 grots can still daisy-chain off an entire board edge.

Sure, if they want to risk losing a ton of models.

No, I'm talking a safe chain. Double grots holding hands, each 2" from the next pair. That's ~14.5" worth of bases, plus 28" of space in-between, which equals 42.5"...on a 44" board edge. If you stagger your hand-holders you can even add an inch to that.

 EnTyme wrote:
And if they do, one single attack can reduce that unit to 5 grots because lining up for recess while you're in the middle of a gunfight is now as bad an idea on the gameboard as it is in real life.

*edit* Just a reminder that we haven't seen how casualties work in this edition yet. If they go back to "closest model" like we had in 7th, daisy chains become suicide.

See above comment.

See my edit.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Requiring each model to be within 2" of 2 other models in the unit isn't "needlessly complex". It isn't even complex. It is simple. It gives you lots of options, but the rule is simple.

Give me the ideal geometric shape of a unit of 23 ork boyz to take up maximum space on the table while still being in 2" coherency of 2 other models and while preserving the ability to pull casualties from as many directions as possible without getting yourself into trouble.

If it's simple, this should be a simple answer, right?

The rule is incredibly complex to apply if you are trying to maximize the space your units can safely take up. Almost impossibly so. While still somehow managing to achieve silly results like the bow-tie conga line on the last turn to get two objectives, or the unit of 6 skyweavers that can't be base-to-base in a line.

The complexity of your request in no way impacts the complexity of the rule. The rule is simple. Your goal of "the ideal geometric shape of a unit of 23 ork boyz to take up maximum space on the table" is not.

You act like this is somehow unique in 40K that a simple rule can result in complex problems for the player. I assume the first time you looked at the rules for Piling In and Consolidating in 8th Edition it occurred to you that you could swing around a model to get 0.01" closer will moving 3" towards your opponent's board edge. Simple rule, complex usage.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Orks, of course, being known for their strict formations...

 alextroy wrote:
Requiring each model to be within 2" of 2 other models in the unit isn't "needlessly complex". It isn't even complex. It is simple. It gives you lots of options, but the rule is simple.

You literally cannot have 10 guardsmen stand in a line anymore. Worse, if they do start in a line, you instantly lose 5 of them.

The rule may be simple, but the rule is also terrible.

Between two guardsmen standing 2" apart is enough space for 2 more guardsmen. You can totally have 10 guardsmen standing in a line.

And if you want to get fully about it, there is a combination of distance and troopers where it becomes harder and harder to coordinate actions when spread out. Bigger units need to space out less to ensure proper coordination.

Or you can just accept it as rule to avoid gamey actions. I think we shall have to start calling 9th Edition the Anti-Gamey Edition of Warhammer 40,000.

stratigo wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

The rule may be simple, but the rule is also terrible.

Step 1 : Dakka complains about melee not being good and screens getting in the way.

Step 2 : Screens have a harder time screening

Step 3 : This rule is stupid.

most major melee units in the game are hardcore nerfed by this in combination of engagement ranges. Good luck piling in orks. Oh you play custodes? Better not have more than 5 models or three will literally NEVER FIGHT. Same with centurions and agressors, and every bike unit in the game. Berzerkers? not longer able to maximize numbers. Et cetera, et cetera. Melee units not nerfed? Single model monsters. Further pushing the developing big model meta.

So that rule where models within 1" of models within 1" of the enemy won't be able to fight that was in the rules for the last 5 editions of 40K is being removed?

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Yea, the "white knight" who isn't sure about Eradicators and put his pre-order on hold.

Or, maybe, so many people are pre-occupied with whining, moaning, or arm-chair rules writing while still missing the intent of the rule that we never get to discuss how we use the god damn rule in the first place.

Daisy chain is one consequence. Massive screens are a problem in a game with potential null zone deployments and also for reserves in general. You do want to be able to bring your melee reserves in close, don't you?

I will drop the white knighting since I'm not interested in a personal fight, but having said that you implied this would somehow benefit melee as if screens were the only issue plaguing melee in 8th. Yes screens might be less effective but so so are melee units themselves, so let's draw that up as a zero gain overall, even though I'm personally convinced this change hurts melee more than it benefits them. Like I said daisy chaining is a boon to melee not a drawback, castles are hurt less by this than melee, null deployments/DS screening was an issue yes, but the fact DS is even necessary to make most melee units useful is a big problem in and off itself. Overall I feel this hurts melee more because inpiling/tri pointing will be even more difficult for what benefit to melee exactly?

If they are changing casualties to being the closest model, there would be no need to do this in the first place, because that itself would make it dangerous to chain.

But they aren't doing that. If they were, we'd know by now. BTW, Reece's (insert obligatory stompa reference) "big, huge change" that he had been talking about not having been revealed was this. So there's no huge change still lurking out there that we don't know about, at least not according to any of the playtesters who have spoken about it.

 alextroy wrote:

Or you can just accept it as rule to avoid gamey actions. I think we shall have to start calling 9th Edition the Anti-Gamey Edition of Warhammer 40,000.

Really? Its actually starting to look like the most Gamey. The intent of many of these rules is to stomp on specific past rules interactions by introducing more game-specific clauses, chasing its own tail to create and close corner cases, and the writing swoops and loops around odd, pointless digressions that double the word count. (Unit coherency doesn't need to summarize the basic turn structure chart to tell you which phases most movement happens in, nor does it need to preview reinforcement rules. Those rules just need a simple page reference to unit coherence)

Yeah, this change is absolutely not anti-gamey. No change that results in 6 skyweavers being unable to line up base-to-base but that allows 5 skyweavers to daisy chain out 20" of board space can be called anti-gamey.

Especially not if it still allows a 30-man grot unit to screen out a whole board edge.

Or if it allows you to bow-tie conga-line an even greater distance, but if you take a casualty suddenly the unit evaporates down to 5 models. That's even gamier than the prior conga-line, not less.

 EnTyme wrote:
Well for one, they're immersion breaking. Soldiers simply don't behave like that. Daisy chains are a ridiculously gamey strategy.

And soldiers just vanishing because they're 1mm to far from a second squad mate is immersive?... Yea, OK

Soldiers spread out in a long line is unacceptably immersion-breaking, but soldiers spread out in a long line, with each soldier holding hands with his best buddy, is totally not!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

Except this rule also negatively impacts big melee units too? Before I could pile in/consolidate towards the next unit in a single file if I wanted too and now I can't do so anymore. Not too mention terminator units over 5 who now need to march in 2 files when before I could form one big line with 10. I know you are a GW white knight but at least consider what their changes do before you complain about us, screens were far from the only issue plaguing melee units and this change just makes it even worse. I never ever saw a gunline daisy chaining their units to be in buff auras because lo and behold, gunlines can just sit on their arse for 3 turns. Daisy chaining (in my experience at least) was mostly useful for melee units/armies and the occasional horde unit capping 2 objectives with one unit. The latter I'm fine with going away but the first not when nothing so far indicates castles are losing anything.

Yea, the "white knight" who isn't sure about Eradicators and put his pre-order on hold.

Or, maybe, so many people are pre-occupied with whining, moaning, or arm-chair rules writing while still missing the intent of the rule that we never get to discuss how we use the god damn rule in the first place.

Daisy chain is one consequence. Massive screens are a problem in a game with potential null zone deployments and also for reserves in general. You do want to be able to bring your melee reserves in close, don't you?

This was someone finding a loophole in another player's bs cheese strategy. The white scars player? Was a muppet, and deserved to have someone pull something like this on him.

I dunno if you were actually playing the game at this time, but null deploying your army was awful and gamey. Way worse than going "well my gakky tau kroot (cause they were always REALLY gakky) are gonna show this jerk what's up)"

 alextroy wrote:
Or you can just accept it as rule to avoid gamey actions.

As yukishiro1 pointed out, this doesn't stop that at all.

It should've been 11+.

Punishing the basic unit size for most of the armies in 40k makes no sense.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, this change is absolutely not anti-gamey. No change that results in 6 skyweavers being unable to line up base-to-base but that allows 5 skyweavers to daisy chain out 20" of board space can be called anti-gamey.

Especially not if it still allows a 30-man grot unit to screen out a whole board edge.

Or if it allows you to bow-tie conga-line an even greater distance, but if you take a casualty suddenly the unit evaporates down to 5 models. That's even gamier than the prior conga-line, not less.

You keep harping on those skyweavers, but they're clearly more an exception than a rule. The way I see it this rule was made to prevent horde shenanigans the most, but they applied it to midsized units as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Or you can just accept it as rule to avoid gamey actions.

As yukishiro1 pointed out, this doesn't stop that at all.

It should've been 11+.

Punishing the basic unit size for most of the armies in 40k makes no sense.

I don't agree that it's a punishment unleas your army hinged on very specific builds and uses of screens.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, this change is absolutely not anti-gamey. No change that results in 6 skyweavers being unable to line up base-to-base but that allows 5 skyweavers to daisy chain out 20" of board space can be called anti-gamey.

Especially not if it still allows a 30-man grot unit to screen out a whole board edge.

Or if it allows you to bow-tie conga-line an even greater distance, but if you take a casualty suddenly the unit evaporates down to 5 models. That's even gamier than the prior conga-line, not less.

You keep harping on those skyweavers, but they're clearly more an exception than a rule. The way I see it this rule was made to prevent horde shenanigans the most, but they applied it to midsized units as well.

So that makes it a good rule how? All elite small sized units are hurt by this for no reason other than GW can't think of an elegant solution to save their life.

@ (Broken)Clockworkrecords

Your claiming that he is a broken record?

Mate you said Gaunt Carpet a few posts ago, playing it straight, as if gaunts needed to be reigned in lol

He's using skyweavers to demonstrate his point. It also applies to a ton of other units. Heck, just look at admech.

2 troops, the 2 new cav, the new jump troops, the 2 strider chickens and the 50's bots. Thats a ton of crap that gets punished for taking that 6th guy or more. That's one book lol.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't agree that it's a punishment unleas your army hinged on very specific builds and uses of screens.

It's punishing because it exists. Because you remove one casualty and suddenly half your unit dies because you didn't obsessively measure out 2" on all your units last turn like some TFG back when we still used blast markers.

According to G-dubs, this is unacceptably immersion breaking abuse of game mechanics:



But this is just excellent, immersion-boosting strategy:



This is also unacceptable immersion breaking abuse of game mechanics:



Anyone who thinks this doesn't make sense is clearly just a hater.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe do some research on the word ZERO

you don;lt seem to undertstand it - at ALL

Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????

Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL
Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!

SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT

No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.

NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem

You have yet to show why they're broken.

I can read the stats - can you?

Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?

Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?

There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.

You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.

What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+

Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.

That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.

The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.

They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

I kinda agree with Slayer here, yes it's a good volume of melta shots at a fair price point, but you've got to get them there and their defensive stats aren't that amazing. Likewise in the era of having infinite height los blocking and -1 to hit terrain dotted about, there's good odds people will get the drop on these guys first.

Yea if only units could generically be guaranteed to alpha off a flanking position for only a single CP... Oh wait, now they can.

Slayer had a point, a poor one, but he couldn't resist being extreme as usual. He's part of the crowd that contributed to the idiotic redefining of the word literally through his hyperbole. So now he's moved onto other words like absolutely apparently

He has quoted himself several times in that chain, which contains the irrefutable evidence of his own failure. Yet his complete lack of humility drives him to dig deeper.

Then pray tell what was wrong about my statement. Please show the combat potential of the 100 point unit, please!

You mean the combat potential of a super shooty squad that shouldn't by rights have any melee to begin with? Primaris are ridiculous generalist that outshoot most other specialist shooty elites of other Codexes while still f'ing up most other non-melee units and quite a few melee specialist units of other races for no reason. Their statline should not exist to begin with.

 Castozor wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, this change is absolutely not anti-gamey. No change that results in 6 skyweavers being unable to line up base-to-base but that allows 5 skyweavers to daisy chain out 20" of board space can be called anti-gamey.

Especially not if it still allows a 30-man grot unit to screen out a whole board edge.

Or if it allows you to bow-tie conga-line an even greater distance, but if you take a casualty suddenly the unit evaporates down to 5 models. That's even gamier than the prior conga-line, not less.

You keep harping on those skyweavers, but they're clearly more an exception than a rule. The way I see it this rule was made to prevent horde shenanigans the most, but they applied it to midsized units as well.

So that makes it a good rule how? All elite small sized units are hurt by this for no reason other than GW can't think of an elegant solution to save their life.

I saw the supposed "elegant solution" people claimed Warmachine has and I don't feel it was all that elegant. Frankly I think it fits 40k about as well as wearing a shoe on the wrong foot.

I'm not claiming this rule is perfect, I just don't think it's as bad as claimed.